Infant Baptism

[jgrig2]

Originally Posted by Lauren

You say it yourself, through faith alone....so what does it profit an infant to be baptized if they don't have that faith?


Because the parents take that step of faith themselves and believe that their child will be saved because they acted in faith and baptized their child? Is that the reasoning? Really just trying to understand here.

Reformed persons reject the idea that baptism must come after a confession of faith. This is why the SBC is in so much theological insanity because it is not unusual for persons to be baptized 3 or 4 times in their life because no human knows their heart. Was it sinful for Jacob to be circumsized or Joseph? Of course not. Collosians 2 and Acts teach the principle of the Covenant sign continues in baptism. Baptism in the case of a covenant child tells all the world that this child receives this promise of God: That if he or she exercises saving faith, God will rescue him from merited destruction. It points to the conditional promise to come. Yet those who are not baptized in a Christian church as an infant are outside the visible Covenant and baptism brings them into it as a sign and seal of what Christ has done. I repeat: Abraham received the sign AFTER faith but Jacob BERFORE Faith.

[MahogonySnail]

I think infant baptism is 10 times better than an age of accountability doctrine. For the following reasons, a) it has history, a long tradition, b) it is symbolic and something everyone can point to and know as a time in the childs life.

[jgrig2]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

I think infant baptism is 10 times better than an age of accountability doctrine. For the following reasons, a) it has history, a long tradition, b) it is symbolic and something everyone can point to and know as a time in the childs life.

You don't do something because you don't or do like it or the alternative. You do it because you believe God commands so in scripture. No reformed church teaches that baptism justifies you.

[MahogonySnail]

You don't do something because you don't or do like it or the alternative. You do it because you believe God commands so in scripture. No reformed church teaches that baptism justifies

That's why I also believe in baptism of the Spirit and the use and practice of spiritual gifts (tongues, prophecy, word of knowledge, teaching, etc) as recorded in Acts of the apostles and Jesus's prophecy about the early church. What does the reformed churches teach about those? Anything?

[jgrig2]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

That's why I also believe in baptism of the Spirit and the use and practice of spiritual gifts (tongues, prophecy, word of knowledge, teaching, etc) as recorded in Acts of the apostles and Jesus's prophecy about the early church. What does the reformed churches teach about those? Anything?

Different opinions though the mainstream opinion is taht there is a cessesation. My own opinon on this is that:
1. tongues clearly in the book of acts refer to real languages. though in 1 corinthians can be understood to be somesort of bizzare prayer language. Even in that context whether you believe about them the worship service in the New Testament is primary about the Preached word, the sacraments (Lord's supper and baptism), and church discipline and how tongues fits should be deceided by each local church. But it must be done in order.
*A side note: every religion throughout the world has a version of speaking in tongues so I do not count this a super sign of the Spirit but I cannot deny that it existed.
2. Prophecy can mean one thing in one verse and something entirely differently depending on the author and context. Its a tricky word. But Reformed theology has always had a place for modern day FALLIBLE (Non-infallible) prophecy in the preached sermon. There is a famous quote of Calvin and this idea is picked up in the Belgic confession that as the preacher faithfully understands the text and applies it right it is as if God is speaking to you thorugh humans who makes errors. Clearly the office of apostle has ceased and thus the canon of Scripture is closed. So Wayne Grudem's systematic theology on the gifts represents a more moderate and neo-reformed undersanding of the charismatics that I am sympathetique too though not 100% convinced.
3. word of knowledge is mentioned but NEVER DEFINED IN SCRIPTURE so thre is no way to know how this gift operated in the early chuch.
4. Teaching office and teaching gifts are different.

[MahogonySnail]

Well I think it's ironic that there is so much definition and detail about water baptism in Reformed Theology, but so little understanding or practice of baptism of the Spirit (whether that is believed to occur at water baptism or subsequent, is not the issue, but the necessity of the experience is to fulfillment of Scripture and Christian living)
Sounds a little bit ignorant of Scripture to me (the mainstream reformed theology). God commands baptism in the Spirit too you know?
Afterall, Jesus did say:

Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 And I remembered the Word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

[MahogonySnail]

In relation to infant baptism, in the Catholic church for example, and Church of England too I think, and maybe others, the time of confirmation is the time when the Spirit is received, baptism in the Spirit, through anointing with oil and laying on of hands.. It is also for the person to confirm the baptismal vows made on their behalf when they were a child. It is not as if a child is baptised as an infant and never given a chance to believe and decide for themself. Confirmation is just like baptism but without the water. And in fac tif they are baptised with the Spirit, it is more important than being wet with water.
So I don't know why people make a fuss about infant baptism being wrong. I don't know if the reformed have an equivalent of confirmation and laying on of hands, but it appears not. It's sort of half the Gospel if they don't do it. At least if they don't have laying on of hands and receiving the Spirit, they're still in John's mode of baptism and haven't progressed to Christ's. They're still half way through the elementary teachings (Heb 6:2, laying on of hands and baptisms (plural))

[MahogonySnail]

So I think Reformed theology did not accept confirmation as it was rejected by Calvin and Luther. But in doing so they reject the mechanism by which a person is baptised in the Spirit, if not by confirmation then by another process? A person is not always baptised by the Spirit at water baptism, as scripture shows, and wishful thinking that it happens at water baptism gets a person no where.
But I read that some reformed churches have adopted confirmation recently (early 1990's) so I think that's a good thing.

[jgrig2]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

In relation to infant baptism, in the Catholic church for example, and Church of England too I think, and maybe others, the time of confirmation is the time when the Spirit is received, baptism in the Spirit, through anointing with oil and laying on of hands.. It is also for the person to confirm the baptismal vows made on their behalf when they were a child. It is not as if a child is baptised as an infant and never given a chance to believe and decide for themself. Confirmation is just like baptism but without the water. And in fac tif they are baptised with the Spirit, it is more important than being wet with water.
So I don't know why people make a fuss about infant baptism being wrong. I don't know if the reformed have an equivalent of confirmation and laying on of hands, but it appears not. It's sort of half the Gospel if they don't do it. At least if they don't have laying on of hands and receiving the Spirit, they're still in John's mode of baptism and haven't progressed to Christ's. They're still half way through the elementary teachings (Heb 6:2, laying on of hands and baptisms (plural))

Wrong about the Church of England. Please read the 39 articles and the book of common prayer. JI Packer wrote an excellent commentary on them.

[jgrig2]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

So I think Reformed theology did not accept confirmation as it was rejected by Calvin and Luther. But in doing so they reject the mechanism by which a person is baptised in the Spirit, if not by confirmation then by another process? A person is not always baptised by the Spirit at water baptism, as scripture shows, and wishful thinking that it happens at water baptism gets a person no where.
But I read that some reformed churches have adopted confirmation recently (early 1990's) so I think that's a good thing.

They rejected confirmation as A JUSTIFYING SACRAMENT but as a special means of sanctifying grace. Reformed churches have what is called ''professions of faith''. We do not put the emphesis on when God saves someone but when some person is of a credible age and they wish to partake in the Lord's supper and they want to make a public commitment they go to the elders to make a profession of faith infront of the congregation. As for whatever the baptism of the Holy Spirit is I would encourage you to read into the works of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on this subject.

[MahogonySnail]

Wrong about the Church of England. Please read the 39 articles and the book of common prayer. JI Packer wrote an excellent commentary on them.

No I think I'm right about the Church of England.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeeve.../sectionc.html
Using words based on Isaiah 11:2, the bishop leads the people in praying for the Holy Spirit to rest upon those being confirmed and following this confirmation prayer the bishop addresses each candidate by name and says:
‘[Name] God has called you by name and made you his own.’
The bishop then lays his hand on the head of each candidate, saying
‘Confirm, O Lord, your servant [Name] with your Holy Spirit.’
Each candidate replies Amen..

As for whatever the baptism of the Holy Spirit is I would encourage you to read into the works of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on this subject.

Yes he saw it as a separate or subsequent experience I think, much like I believe.